[PASSED] Access to Humanitarian Aid

[Caracasus]

We understand your argument ambassador. We do, however, feel that either new legislation should be put into practice covering non-conflict humanitarian aid, or this legislation be changed to cover humanitarian aid to all. Given that this legislation covers access to humanitarian aid, how humanitarian aid is defined within this could lead to unforeseen consequences regarding how humanitarian aid is defined in the future.

It would, sadly, not be beyond the realm of possibility to imagine how a belligerent nation may wish to take advantage of a natural disaster to further their own motives at the expense of the affected civilian population - without there necessarily being an armed conflict.

[Separatist Peoples]

We understand your argument ambassador. We do, however, feel that either new legislation should be put into practice covering non-conflict humanitarian aid, or this legislation be changed to cover humanitarian aid to all. Given that this legislation covers access to humanitarian aid, how humanitarian aid is defined within this could lead to unforeseen consequences regarding how humanitarian aid is defined in the future.

It would, sadly, not be beyond the realm of possibility to imagine how a belligerent nation may wish to take advantage of a natural disaster to further their own motives at the expense of the affected civilian population - without there necessarily being an armed conflict.

"Then that is something for a future resolution to deal with, as this doesn't prevent that. The definition only applies for this proposal. I'm not expanding this, that was one of the first problems this draft had."

[Caracasus]

Fair enough, We shall wait your new draft to cover non-conflict humanitarian aid, unless you are too busy that is.

[Separatist Peoples]

Fair enough, We shall wait your new draft to cover non-conflict humanitarian aid, unless you are too busy that is.

"This is part four of an ongoing project to formalize the customs of war practiced by most nations. A non-conflict based proposal is somewhat out of my scope at the moment, and wouldn't be a priority for at least several months."

[Caracasus]

Well. we've certainly appreciated and admired your efforts to mitigate some of the worst excesses and damages of war. We may consider throwing together something to do with non-conflict humanitarian aid if we are looking at a timescale of months.

[Whovian Tardisia]

Any vehicle approaching from territory controlled is considered hostile and destroyed before reaching the 'frontlines'.

Under the new "Protected Status in Wartime" legislation, no military vehicle can be marked as humanitarian or left as unmarked and therefore civilian. This would mean you are intentionally destroying civilians or humanitarian workers. I personally believe that would be considered a war crime.

[Separatist Peoples]

Any vehicle approaching from territory controlled is considered hostile and destroyed before reaching the 'frontlines'.

Under the new "Protected Status in Wartime" legislation, no military vehicle can be marked as humanitarian or left as unmarked and therefore civilian. This would mean you are intentionally destroying civilians or humanitarian workers. I personally believe that would be considered a war crime.

"The issue here is that, at the time of that comment, PSiW wasn't passed. The Jarish Inyoan ambassador, in addition to making up claims that rights don't exist when they clearly do, managed to oppose this because the protections in PSiW didn't exist, and this seemed a waste, while at the same time claiming that the protections that PSIW promises were a waste because the protections of this didn't yet exist!

"However, yes, that would be an accurate statement now."

[Whovian Tardisia]

Under the new "Protected Status in Wartime" legislation, no military vehicle can be marked as humanitarian or left as unmarked and therefore civilian. This would mean you are intentionally destroying civilians or humanitarian workers. I personally believe that would be considered a war crime.

"The issue here is that, at the time of that comment, PSiW wasn't passed. The Jarish Inyoan ambassador, in addition to making up claims that rights don't exist when they clearly do, managed to oppose this because the protections in PSiW didn't exist, and this seemed a waste, while at the same time claiming that the protections that PSIW promises were a waste because the protections of this didn't yet exist!

"However, yes, that would be an accurate statement now."

Thank you for the clarification, Ambassador Bell. And my apologies for not officially supporting the excellent act that is the PSiW. I was on holiday when it was on vote.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, destroying unmarked vehicles is not against PSiW. They are still fair targets as irregular combats, terrorist, criminal organizations and non WA military forces can still use unmarked to carry out attacks. We do not assume that we will face only WA nations in armed conflict. We do not take for granted that WA laws will be followed by non member nations.

You assume that an unmarked vehicle is civilian, we assume that they are hostile. And the PSiW has flaws that negate most of PSiW. Just like there are flaws in this that negate it. Pass or not, it really doesn't matter, the business of war goes on unchanged.

[Separatist Peoples]

Actually, destroying unmarked vehicles is not against PSiW. They are still fair targets as irregular combats, terrorist, criminal organizations and non WA military forces can still use unmarked to carry out attacks. We do not assume that we will face only WA nations in armed conflict. We do not take for granted that WA laws will be followed by non member nations.

You assume that an unmarked vehicle is civilian, we assume that they are hostile. And the PSiW has flaws that negate most of PSiW. Just like there are flaws in this that negate it. Pass or not, it really doesn't matter, the business of war goes on unchanged.

"Provided the vehicle doesn't invite the confidence of the enemy by looking deliberately civilian, you are correct: an unmarked vehicle is not, in fact, inherently illegal, and likewise not an illegal target. However, this resolution will ensure that humanitarian operations' vehicles will not be unmarked, which will both allow your nation to attack threats in the manner you described and also ensure that the inhabitants are not lawful aid workers. My previous comment was directed more to attacking marked vehicles."

[Whovian Tardisia]

Actually, destroying unmarked vehicles is not against PSiW. They are still fair targets as irregular combats, terrorist, criminal organizations and non WA military forces can still use unmarked to carry out attacks. We do not assume that we will face only WA nations in armed conflict. We do not take for granted that WA laws will be followed by non member nations.

You assume that an unmarked vehicle is civilian, we assume that they are hostile. And the PSiW has flaws that negate most of PSiW. Just like there are flaws in this that negate it. Pass or not, it really doesn't matter, the business of war goes on unchanged.

"Provided the vehicle doesn't invite the confidence of the enemy by looking deliberately civilian, you are correct: an unmarked vehicle is not, in fact, inherently illegal, and likewise not an illegal target. However, this resolution will ensure that humanitarian operations' vehicles will not be unmarked, which will both allow your nation to attack threats in the manner you described and also ensure that the inhabitants are not lawful aid workers. My previous comment was directed more to attacking marked vehicles."

So Jarish Inyo (or any other nation that defends their borders in this manner) is permitted to fire upon unmarked vehicles, but not humanitarian ones? That seems sensible. Thanks again for clearing up confusion, Ambassador Bell.

[Jarish Inyo]

Vehicles marked as humanitarian can be sopped and detained until it is verified that they are infact humanitarian aid vehicles, not carry contraband, and all members of the group are who they say they are and truly neutral.

We will fire on anyone carrying a weapon. Any so-called humanitarian aid found with a weapon will be counted as hostile and we will not extend them the protections this proposal entitles if it passes.

[Separatist Peoples]

Vehicles marked as humanitarian can be sopped and detained until it is verified that they are infact humanitarian aid vehicles, not carry contraband, and all members of the group are who they say they are and truly neutral.

We will fire on anyone carrying a weapon. Any so-called humanitarian aid found with a weapon will be counted as hostile and we will not extend them the protections this proposal entitles if it passes.

"Thats not the case, but what the hell do I care? Your delegation has such a history of deliberately misinterpreting resolutions, its a wonder you even bother raising an objection at all. Interpret this any way you want and leave your obnoxious and unhelpful comments in literally any other drafting room, please. I will literally pay you actual money to just fucking stop that where I'm trying to work."

[Mikemapolis]

What is to prevent nations to use this provision to give aid and sneak weapons to the other side during war time?

I would request that all aid must be checked by independent forces and all aid missions monitored to be sure they are not giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What is to prevent nations to use this provision to give aid and sneak weapons to the other side during war time?

I would request that all aid must be checked by independent forces and all aid missions monitored to be sure they are not giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

You would need to repeal Humanitarian Transport, as Knootoss attempted about a month ago to get such provisions passed. I, in fact, supported a replacement attempt along those lines, where aid would be checked before setting out on missions and only given the insignia of an aid organisation after approval before setting off. However, the repeal failed.

[Whovian Tardisia]

What is to prevent nations to use this provision to give aid and sneak weapons to the other side during war time?

I would request that all aid must be checked by independent forces and all aid missions monitored to be sure they are not giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Also, part of this proposal is focused on keeping aid organizations neutral, i.e allowing them to help both sides without consequence.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Speak in the next three days or hold your peace for a minimum of three as a half more."

[Wallenburg]

To the esteemed delegation of the Separatist Peoples:

I applaud you all for your commitment to international progress and the betterment of peoples across the multiverse. Your participation in the World Assembly has been extremely important in improving World Assembly policy, and we hope to see you further contribute to international improvement.

Nevertheless, this resolution is a disaster, and destroys the possibility of nations to remain neutral during a war. Clause 3 and 7 assert that, should a nation remain neutral in an armed conflict, its shall be branded as war criminals. Not only does this not take into account the realities and policies of unarmed, primitive or developing, peaceful, and isolated nations, but it essentially drags every nation across the multiverse into any international conflict. This is completely unacceptable. Some nations do not have the resources to deliver aid. Some do not have the time to transfer aid across the galaxies to war zones. Some have religious objections to involvement in war. All of these nations, however, would be accused of war crimes--not because they did anything wrong to anyone, but because they simply distanced themselves from violence.

Futhermore, this resolution brands nations as war criminals even when no war has taken place. Humanitarian aid may be necessary in the event of natural disasters, terrorist attacks, epidemics, famines, and countless other slews of national emergencies. While aid to nations in need is commendable, this resolution achieves nothing by forcing every nation to involve itself in aiding every nation with so much as one bombing threat.

This resolution only encourages violence and a swarm of international involvement in even the least significant skirmish. We will vote against this proposal, and we hope that other members of the World Assembly will see the disastrous consequences of this bill entering into law.

Helen Trevanyika
REPRESENTATIVE OF WALLENBURG

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...Nevertheless, this resolution is a disaster, and destroys the possibility of nations to remain neutral during a war. Clause 3 and 7 assert that, should a nation remain neutral in an armed conflict, its shall be branded as war criminals. Not only does this not take into account the realities and policies of unarmed, primitive or developing, peaceful, and isolated nations, but it essentially drags every nation across the multiverse into any international conflict. This is completely unacceptable. Some nations do not have the resources to deliver aid. Some do not have the time to transfer aid across the galaxies to war zones. Some have religious objections to involvement in war. Some are very isolated and may not even be aware of a war. All of these nations, however, would be accused of war crimes--not because they did anything wrong to anyone, but because they simply distanced themselves from violence.

Futhermore, this resolution brands nations as war criminals even when no war has taken place. Humanitarian aid may be necessary in the event of natural disasters, terrorist attacks, epidemics, famines, and countless other slews of national emergencies. While aid to nations in need is commendable, this resolution achieves nothing by forcing every nation to involve itself in aiding every nation with so much as one bombing threat. ...

"Since the resolution itself doesn't use numbers to preface its requirements, we'd appreciate it if you'd actually quote the specific language that allegedly does these things. We find no sense in which a merely neutral power is suddenly branded a war criminal, unless they for some unfathomable reason add aid organizations to their list of belligerents to be denied territorial passage (which would be ludicrous, and should be illegal)."

[Wallenburg]

...Nevertheless, this resolution is a disaster, and destroys the possibility of nations to remain neutral during a war. Clause 3 and 7 assert that, should a nation remain neutral in an armed conflict, its shall be branded as war criminals. Not only does this not take into account the realities and policies of unarmed, primitive or developing, peaceful, and isolated nations, but it essentially drags every nation across the multiverse into any international conflict. This is completely unacceptable. Some nations do not have the resources to deliver aid. Some do not have the time to transfer aid across the galaxies to war zones. Some have religious objections to involvement in war. Some are very isolated and may not even be aware of a war. All of these nations, however, would be accused of war crimes--not because they did anything wrong to anyone, but because they simply distanced themselves from violence.

Futhermore, this resolution brands nations as war criminals even when no war has taken place. Humanitarian aid may be necessary in the event of natural disasters, terrorist attacks, epidemics, famines, and countless other slews of national emergencies. While aid to nations in need is commendable, this resolution achieves nothing by forcing every nation to involve itself in aiding every nation with so much as one bombing threat. ...

"Since the resolution itself doesn't use numbers to preface its requirements, we'd appreciate it if you'd actually quote the specific language that allegedly does these things. We find no sense in which a merely neutral power is suddenly branded a war criminal, unless they for some unfathomable reason add aid organizations to their list of belligerents to be denied territorial passage (which would be ludicrous, and should be illegal)."

Determining the deliberate refusal of international charity and aid to civilians to be as much a violation of human rights as deliberately inflicting conditions contrary to life on a population;

Consider it a war crime, and therefore illegal, to intentionally deprive individuals of humanitarian aid supplies, or prohibit their use or distribution, except in cases where reasonable alternatives can be substituted, such as in instances of controlled substances or dietary restrictions.

[Ainocra]

I have some concern with the safety of any humanitarian workers, the resident militarizes in any conflict should be able to keep them from active battlefields for their own safety.

This is not a bad framework but it feels a bit rushed.

I cannot support it in it's current form but I would be able to were my concerns addressed.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassadors, this has even up and available for comment since January. If you had concerns, they should have been raised when I made an announcement of my intention to submit this. None were made. None."

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassadors, this has even up and available for comment since January. If you had concerns, they should have been raised when I made an announcement of my intention to submit this. None were made. None."

OOC: I haven't been on NationStates as long as this thread has. And I have only recently become a WA delegate. Until then I had little incentive to argue on these forums.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassadors, this has even up and available for comment since January. If you had concerns, they should have been raised when I made an announcement of my intention to submit this. None were made. None."

OOC: I haven't been on NationStates as long as this thread has. And I have only recently become a WA delegate. Until then I had little incentive to argue on these forums.

OOC: that falls under the purview of "not my problem". I'll address your IC issues at a later point.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I haven't been on NationStates as long as this thread has. And I have only recently become a WA delegate. Until then I had little incentive to argue on these forums.

OOC: that falls under the purview of "not my problem". I'll address your IC issues at a later point.

OOC: Well then it certainly isn't my problem that you've had this up since January.
I'm perplexed by your poor temper, since you just recently invited comments on this proposal.